Skip to content

Comments

remove the *-skip workflows (fix #10868)#10869

Merged
mergify[bot] merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
ci-no-skip-issue-10868
Mar 27, 2025
Merged

remove the *-skip workflows (fix #10868)#10869
mergify[bot] merged 1 commit intomasterfrom
ci-no-skip-issue-10868

Conversation

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator

@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever commented Mar 27, 2025

fix #10868, essentially revert #9355

Probably needs a backport? I forgot if GitHub/Mergify look at the ci scripts anywhere other than master. But we can test it empirically before backporting.

I petition to skip 2-day delay. @Mikolaj?


Template B: This PR does not modify behaviour or interface

E.g. the PR only touches documentation or tests, does refactorings, etc.

Include the following checklist in your PR:

  • Patches conform to the coding conventions.
  • Is this a PR that fixes CI? If so, it will need to be backported to older cabal release branches (ask maintainers for directions).

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Mar 27, 2025

Yes! Yes, let's skip delay, it's incurring a risk for each merge we do.

@Mikolaj Mikolaj requested a review from BinderDavid March 27, 2025 14:55
@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Mar 27, 2025

@BinderDavid: it seems we can't make it work, unfortunately. If I understand this correctly, this is a mergify bug that is not being fixed. Hence the revert.

@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

[26 19:48:23] <haskellbridge> <M​an of Letters> second backport down (https://github.com/haskell/cabal/pull/10858); very fast, because CI skipped a lot of checks, probably erroneously, probably geekosaur noticed that before
[26 19:50:56] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> Doesn't seem like mergify's going to fix it, we'll have to drop the docs hack to get full ci
[26 19:56:09] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> or find an alternative to mergify that still maintains all our label trickery
[26 19:58:13] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> for those playing along from home: mergify pushes a PR in as soon as all conditions are satisfied, not waiting for CI to finish. the docs hack skips the build checks and marks them successful, by ignoring changes to non-docs files (which is the only option provided by github actions triggers)
[26 19:59:25] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> github's own merge train support doesn't allow us to use cooldowns, which is somewhat problematic for how we do things
[26 20:16:02] * merijn ([email protected]) has joined
[26 20:18:39] <haskellbridge> <M​an of Letters> geekosaur: I'm not clear on how the docs hack affects the situation; e.g., the PR in question didn't have the marker that it's doc changes only
[26 20:19:47] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> that is in fact the problem. there are two versions of the validate run: one which ignores changes to non-doc files and returns success, and the normal one which builds and validates eveyrhting and returns success
[26 20:20:03] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> the docs one, since it doesn't build or validate, always returns success first
[26 20:20:32] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> mergify takes that as meaning that, since validate "succeeded", it's okay to merge
[26 20:21:25] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> you will see that GHA itself doesn't, since changes to PRs don't count as validation-succeeded until the actual validate run finishes successfully
[26 20:22:12] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> (which is what was tested before the docs hack went in)
[26 20:23:16] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> an additional complication is that mergify uses the configuration on master, so you can only test mergify configuration by merging changes and seeing what happens on the next PR that it is told to merge
[26 20:23:40] <haskellbridge> <M​an of Letters> nasty; since no solution is on the horizon, I agree, let's rip out the docs-only validator
[26 20:24:29] <haskellbridge> <g​eekosaur> there might be alternatives, such as using the publicly-available marge-bot (same as ghc ci uses) if it supports the cooldown stuff

@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

and re the question in the PR head, Mergify uses the config on master but GHA uses the one in the PR.

Copy link
Collaborator

@geekosaur geekosaur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's one more step needed: the regular versions of these workflows have trigger conditions that need to be removed. See for example https://github.com/haskell/cabal/blob/master/.github/workflows/validate.yml#L13-L21 and the repeat for pull_request below it. Also the comment before that block will no longer be correct. If the ignores are left in, docs-only PRs won't be considered to have passed validate and won't be mergeable.

@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever force-pushed the ci-no-skip-issue-10868 branch from 28c7749 to 0aa0042 Compare March 27, 2025 16:55
@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator Author

thanks @geekosaur! could you check now?

@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever added merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge and removed attention: needs-review labels Mar 27, 2025
@mergify mergify bot added the merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days label Mar 27, 2025
@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator Author

and re the question in the PR head, Mergify uses the config on master but GHA uses the one in the PR.

It sounds like having this change just on master should suffice because Mergify is doing the wrong thing (merging prematurely), so if it sees the change on master, it should likely stop doing that.

@geekosaur
Copy link
Collaborator

Mergify will, sadly, continue to do that because it will still obey what it thinks is the required checks; the changes need to be backported to ensure it doesn't do it on branches.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Mar 27, 2025

I will backport [Edit: to 3.14] as soon as it merges.

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Mar 27, 2025

Is the "Bootstrap post job" hanging?

@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Mar 27, 2025

Maybe that's a transient issue, because the CI config in the PR is different than on master and the two somehow conflict?

@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I screwed up, sorry. Will fix in a moment.

@ulysses4ever ulysses4ever force-pushed the ci-no-skip-issue-10868 branch from 0aa0042 to 718a816 Compare March 27, 2025 18:35
@ulysses4ever
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bootstrap is fine now. Just have to wait for validate...

@mergify mergify bot added the ready and waiting Mergify is waiting out the cooldown period label Mar 27, 2025
@mergify mergify bot merged commit dc79523 into master Mar 27, 2025
53 checks passed
@mergify mergify bot deleted the ci-no-skip-issue-10868 branch March 27, 2025 20:04
@Mikolaj
Copy link
Member

Mikolaj commented Mar 27, 2025

@mergify backport 3.14

@mergify
Copy link
Contributor

mergify bot commented Mar 27, 2025

backport 3.14

✅ Backports have been created

Details

mergify bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 27, 2025
Backport #10869: remove the *-skip workflows (fix #10868)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

continuous-integration merge delay passed Applied (usually by Mergify) when PR approved and received no updates for 2 days merge me Tell Mergify Bot to merge priority: high 🔥 ready and waiting Mergify is waiting out the cooldown period

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Mergify merges PRs before CI finishes

3 participants